This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

U.S. politics is crazy but Canadian politics needs more passion: Gwyn

Calling Canadian politics boring is another way of saying that too few in our system possess strong convictions about any policy or idea.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich says government shutdowns are no big deal. He was the author of the two shutdowns when Bill Clinton was president. In this Dec. 31, 1995, file photo, Clinton meets with Gingrich, left, and Senate majority leader Bob Dole. (Greg Gibson / AP file photo)

The most common criticism made of Canadian politics is that it’s boring.

The accusation is accurate. Our political system is almost empty of ideology. Even a true-believing conservative like Prime Minister Stephen Harper has had to steer his government along a line little more than a millimetre or so to the right of the centre.

The principal reason for this state of political affairs is that Canadians are very Canadian. We’re exceptionally good at compromise and accommodation. We have to be this way because we’re so divided — originally between English, French and aboriginal, and now increasingly by other ethnic and language groups. Our regional differences are also wide because the distances between us are so huge.

The best expression of the nature of our political affairs is the way we have given those who oppose the government a responsibility far wider than just that of pointing out its failures and mistakes and of trying to win over voters.

This is expressed by the name we give the opposition party, or the one that wins the second-largest number of seats. It is that they are “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.”

Article Continued Below

Today, that title seems orotund and pompous. Before long, the “Majesty” bit is certain to get dropped.

The “Loyal” part, though, is a precious convention. The best illustration of its value occurred in the 1990s. Then, we still managed to function pretty effectively even though our official opposition was a party dedicated to breaking up Canada, namely the Bloc Québécois. We just assumed they would play by the rules, and they did, largely.

Below the border, such an accomplishment would be impossible. The political system there is plainly and obviously crazy, although exciting as in the populism of the Tea Party movement and the passion with which public debates are conducted.

The shutdown of the government in Washington is, of course, the case example. A telling about this extraordinary event was made by former House speaker Newt Gingrich, himself author of the two government shutdowns when Bill Clinton was president.

No big deal, Gingrich wrote in an essay last weekend: there were no less than 12 shutdowns of government during the terms of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. According to Gingrich, this showed that “Washington is working” because the Republican opposition was doing what it exists to do, namely to oppose legislation it didn’t like.

What Gingrich omitted from his analysis was that the legislation at issue — the health-care reforms the Republicans always call “Obamacare” — has already been approved by Congress, even if reluctantly, and its legality confirmed by the Supreme Court. Anyway, if Obamacare is badly flawed, a future Republican president can change it, or try to.

What Gingrich was arguing, and what the objective of the Republicans was until scared off by the polls, is that political disagreements can be carried to any extreme — even, as in this instance, attempted blackmail.

Our own system is by no means perfect. Calling it boring is actually another way of saying that too few in our system possess strong convictions about any policy or idea.

The contrasting American system comes from two courses. One is the American constitution itself.

It was designed by the founding fathers for the specific purpose of making governments not work, or of doing so with extreme difficulty. The theory was that the less governments could work, the more liberty individual Americans would have. The device for accomplishing this was the separation of powers, or political gridlock.

The other source is that Americans are — unsurprisingly — very American. There’s their competitiveness, from which comes their exceptional creativity. There’s also, though, what’s been called the “paranoid style in American politics.”

There, opponents are not merely wrong but are some way un-American, even evil. Hence, the attitude of outright hatred toward President Barack Obama among many Republicans.

This shutdown will get settled. Until the next one. It really is crazy. Our system really is sensible, although a long overdue addition to it would be some passion.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com